Was there anyway the Russians could have won the Crimean War after the French and British entered the war?
Was there anyway the Russians could have won the Crimean War after the French and British entered the war?
Which theatre would they be winning in?Was there anyway the Russians could have won the Crimean War after the French and British entered the war?
Which theatre would they be winning in?
They'd have a job winning the Baltic, for example, because that was basically successive Allied assaults on forts.
Yes, I'm aware that a fort that was attacked and captured is not identical to another fort that was not attacked.Bomarsund wasn't Kronstadt.
Best,
Yes, I'm aware that a fort that was attacked and captured is not identical to another fort that was not attacked.
Though, in a hypothetical situation in which the war continued another few months, then the Allied fleet assembling to assault - say - Suomenlinna would be able to make its attack, and hence use shallow-draft bomb vessels to shell the fort productively.
A similar attack might also suffice to run the channels around Kronstadt, since the fort was not recently modernized (the Russians spent a lot of money updating it after the war).
Interesting you have to clarify it's 1859 Taku, not 1858 or 1860 Taku.Right, and the reason why was?
The Allies scouted Kronstadt twice during the war, under Napier in 1854 and Dundas again in 1855, and in both cases they chose not to attack because of the expected losses.
In 1854, they attacked Bomarsund (in the Aland Islands, i.e., closer to Sweden than Russia), and with the aid of 10,000 French troops and artillery ashore, took the archipelago.
In 1855, the Allies attacked Sveaborg (off Helsinki) and were repulsed. Not unlike 2nd Taku Forts (1859 version, where the RN lost three warships to the Chinese), Petropavlovsk, and the Dardanelles, ships operating alone didn't exactly sweep all before them.
But other than that, you're bang on.
Best,
Interesting you have to clarify it's 1859 Taku, not 1858 or 1860 Taku. I'll also note the Sea of Azov campaign which was ships operating alone and bombarding the heck out of Russian towns and forts essentially with impunity. My point is that the Allies were not sitting on their hands and were in fact putting together more and more force for the 1856 campaign season. By the way, any reason you didn't mention Charleston? That's another example of what you want to show...
1859 Taku is the RN being stopped.Well, there were three of them (four if you count the 1st Opium War).
Burning down undefended wooden towns...what was Gibson's quote, again?
"...a system which carried on a great war by plundering and destroying the property of defenceless villagers."
And Azov, of course, included the incident of a British warship being captured by horse cavalry, IIRC...
As far as anything else, since the OP's question was about the French and British, figured sticking to their operations seemed reasonable.
Presumably the Russians weren't sitting on their hands, either.
Of course, since the OP has yet to define what he means by "won" it is pretty wide open...
Best,
Right, and the reason why was?
The Allies scouted Kronstadt twice during the war, under Napier in 1854 and Dundas again in 1855, and in both cases they chose not to attack because of the expected losses.
In 1854, they attacked Bomarsund (in the Aland Islands, i.e., closer to Sweden than Russia), and with the aid of 10,000 French troops and artillery ashore, took the archipelago.
In 1855, the Allies attacked Sveaborg (off Helsinki) and were repulsed. Not unlike 2nd Taku Forts (1859 version, where the RN lost three warships to the Chinese), Petropavlovsk, and the Dardanelles, ships operating alone didn't exactly sweep all before them.
But other than that, you're bang on.
Best,
Was there anyway the Russians could have won the Crimean War after the French and British entered the war?
1859 Taku is the RN being stopped.
1860 Taku is the RN coming back to a place that stopped them last time and successfully clearing it.
It's a valid example of the RN adapting to a challenge.
Why do say the 1855 attack on Sveaborg was repulsed?
It was never the intention of the Allies to take Sveaborg at that time. The whole point of the operation was to see how the new gunboats and mortar vessels worked, destroy Russian supplies and cause the Russians to believe an invasion of Sveaborg was possible, thereby preventing them from sending reinforcements to the Crimea.
Dundas in 1855 was pretty much in the same position as Napier in 1854 in not having the right mix of assets (ships and personnel) to take Sveaborg in 1855. In wasn't until after the Great Armament was completed that the Baltic Fleet would have had the necessary number and types of ships to attempt an attack on Sveaborg. Even then, the British were dependent upon the French to provide the necessary land forces, which they weren't enthusiastic about providing.
Cheers.